 | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Cool. Although I don't have that much (if any) of a say in punctuation/no punctuation, I could go either way. I still prefer no punctuation, to keep it consistent with the way it's been done before. BUT - can't always get hung up on the past (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) sure, that works almost as well as {}. It's the _lack_ of any punctuation that bothered me there. :) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) That's the ideal, but we don't have that right now at this moment :-) A good goal to aspire to, and one I'll certainly be promoting among those who are interested in hearing what I have to say. (...) Sure, understood. I still like the idea of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Points taken :-) And ultimately, I'm not going to be involved in making the decision, since I won't be volunteering for the standards body [1]. Just getting in my .02 here while I can ;-) -Tim [1] I don't have the knowledge to discuss some (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Making LDraw accessible to the average computer user is a great thing! But, as you mentioned yourself - these users won't be editing the files by hand, they'll be using "good, free CAD software". So whatever meta commands they need to add, the (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Exactly because it's not likely to be used, ever, by mistake. Anyone can put whatever comments they like in a dat, right? So if I write a dat, and want to enter 0 METAL RAIL STARTS HERE and typo it into 0 META LRAIL STARTS HERE (which is a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Yep. (...) Exactly. I'll make a side note on the { } issue. One of my goals (as Kevin knows) is to see this software more useable and accessible to general computer users and even kids in the intermediate level on up. I'd like people to have (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Yup, LEdit chokes on it, just tried it out using unused line type 9 with text after it. D'oh. (...) I know how to use a keyboard. I'm talking convenience on the part of someone editing by hand. {} isn't necessary, so why add it to the mix? (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) As A C programmer, I'm quite adept at { and even } :) A a developer of L-CAD software, I'd rather see the syntax for current meta-commands unchanged. If we were to formalize meta-commands with a syntax change, we'd have to support both old and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) besides, if we add a new linetype, we're breaking LDRAW.EXE and LEDIT.EXE, wouldn't we? (...) I think that's a great idea :) (...) I'm sorry, I can't understand why it's "too difficult" to enter {} by hand. It's on the standard keyboard. The (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Remember that it is in the current specification that all META-commands be uppercase. I don't know many people that write with caps-lock on but I'm sure it won't happen enough to be a problem. -Orion (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I understand the point, but yep - my line of thinking was what you just said, META isn't that common. (...) Ok. (...) Yeah. Well, the suggestion is something new - which ultimately should be considered by a standards body, and not decided upon (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) The main reason I suggested the braces is that they make it basically impossible for the text to show up at the beginning of a standard comment line. In this case, they're probably unnecessary, since META isn't exactly a common word. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Right. While a lock would be well meant, it just isn't the right approach. (...) Yep. (...) Not selfish in the least, I don't think. If you're doing this for your own enjoyment, why should you be expected to get a group opinion before adding (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Right. Sorry -- my support of that was on a quick response, brain fart I suppose. (...) Good goals we should all focus on. (...) Yup, not the first time. I do think we should work through this, stay on task, and get it right this time though. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) No, I think the intention is to create an official set of meta-commands, which official software should recognise and/or implement. The important point being that any file containing non-ratified commands will not make it into the official (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs writes: <snip> (...) I like this suggestion a lot. It solves most of the problems we've been discussing about namespace pollution. -Orion (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Having read the other replies to this post, I feel that--no matter how well-intentioned--putting a lock on new meta-commands is both wrong and impractical. The simple fact is that all LDraw-based development is done voluntarily. As such, it's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I agree that the discussion should take place - I'm just worried about the "regulation" part. Dan (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) See this web page: (URL) this one: (URL) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Point taken, but I still think developers should discuss what they want to add with LDraw.org and Lugnet.cad.dev so that they don't add something that's already been added or being developed. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I don't see how a lock is practical. We don't even have an official standards body yet. I don't know how you would enforce it any way. My goal in making the call was to document what is there, so that people: a) don't produce name space (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I agree 100%. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Yes, of course the spec document would govern it. What I was more referring to was bodies of people and processes. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) hmmm... how is file naming part of the spec? the spec says it's 8.3, but what else would it say? (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to me. The community (or the "board") could suggest names, and keep track of what's out there - but a "yea or nay" power seems excessive. How, exactly, do you propose you enforce this "nay"? I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) To some extent the parts library will have to be goverened by the file spec. The most glaring issues for this seem to be Part File naming and BFC complience. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) No, I'm saying that if anyone is thinking about adding a meta-command they need to, at the very least, post what they plan to add so that the community can comment and ultimatly say yea or nay. Once the committee us up a running thay will take (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>: (...) I disagree. How can you prevent the various programmers from adding new functionality to their software? Why should development on all these tools halt until the non-existent committee figure out what's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I agree. Establishing such a lock means however we need to move rather quickly on a standards body. I know there are others like Steve and Larry who will want to weigh in on this, but they're busy this weekend. I'm traveling up to Steve's next (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) I think we need to put a lock on the creation of any new commands until we can properly document the existing commands. This will prevent the overlap of functionality. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Don't forget about LDLite: (URL) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin Clague writes: Mucho Snippo. (...) Excellent points, Kevin! All - I can second everything Kevin is saying here. Through many private exchanges, and by meeting Kevin at BricksWest, I've come to understand his position on this (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Hi All, Wow! This thread has created more postings that I thought it would. So far I've gathered meta-commands from (URL) Eriksson LTrax, Parent: Kevin Clague - LPub and LSynth There must be more. If you know of programs that define their own (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Hi Orion, Here is my take on the current state of LDraw related tools and parts library. There are a few documents that sketch out the basic mechanics of what we use today, but the real standards are the programs that we have that use them. We (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Cool. Kevin started the call for meta-commands, and I believe he plans to assemble them into a list/document. If you want to help with that, I suggest you email him. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Consider this my volunteer for this standards body. I can also work on an informal list of META commands. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) While a noble proposal in spirit, I strongly feel we need to organize what we have before taking that radical of a step forward. Once we've defined the current LDraw format spec and all meta-commands, a standards body can work at defining a (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I agree the backward compatibility is good, to a point. This is especially true for the parts library. Too many times we refuse to fix something or extend the file spec (e.g. new colors not able to be represented by existing color numbers) (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Why not keep previous meta-commands where they're at, but also introduce a new line-type exclusively for meta-commands? I'm not too keen on MLCad's WRITE, to me it makes little to no sense. Maybe if it was COMMENT or even ! (like an HTML (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Why not force comments to be a meta-command like MLcad does with WRITE? Then the only problem you have is new files created with Ledit, and old files which will need to be converted. And Ldraw would still handle them OK. ROSCO (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) I think we'll see coming out of this discussion something that will prevent the meta-command chaos we've seen for the past years. No one here is talking about a new file format, or new version of a spec - yet. First we need to fully (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Are we REALLY stuck with current meta-commands? Sure if we change them all (the META Statements) after setting up a "body of standards" our old files may not work but somewhere down the future is it NOT better to NOT worry about backward (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes: [...] (...) I agree with the route of a standards body to control (officially adopted) meta-commands. The second option is just a fix, and the third option is unacceptable, especially if we want to see more (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Kevin & Travis - These are very good points. As a non-programmer, but someone who has a general knowledge of the LDraw file format, I think it is a good idea to separate comments from meta-commands. Also, talk of a standards body is a good (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Sure, but give me a moment. I just noticed the the graphic I added to the text didn't make it into the PDF therefore skewing the TOC. -Orion (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Travis, I could not agree more. I've been tossing around the concepts of an LDraw file format standards body with Tim and others, and IMHO the weakest link in the LDraw file format is that comments and meta-commands use the same record type. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Namespace Pollution is a technical term. It's not meant as an insult, mind you. It refers to a common phenomena in programming, in which things become hard to use because of scope problems, because things named in global scope interfere with (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Neither. You should PUBLICLY support the command and make it known that you are doing so. (...) maybe. (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Thanks, Orion! Would you mind emailing me the plain text, so I can assemble it on a web page for LDraw.org? We can also host the PDF you created on the server for those who prefer it in that format. -Tim (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) OK I'm done. Here's the spec in a more readable format: (URL) didn't change anything, I just cleaned up the text and made a TOC. (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Having read through this thread, I've seen a lot of good points made. However, it also appears that people haven't really fully thought about the implications of meta-commands. It's very important to realize that meta-commands are presented as (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Ain't that the truth! (...) This is kinda what I was proposing. If you had known that the APP {appname} branch of the namespace was open for any developer to use as he saw fit, but that other commands needed more community buy in, you probably (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
I have invented a 'general purpose' header statement, 'Parent:' that points to the parent[s] of a model file. See example below. I find it very useful when sorting out Datsville submodels, and also in animations. I also use the 'Was:' statement for (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) If you write FooCad, don't regard LTrax as a program, but rather a family of standard meta-commands. But as the "owner" of that family, I may change the spec's and thus make FooCAD incompatible... When it comes to LTrax - I know you most (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
In thinking about this a bit more, I flashed on a quote from Yoda in one of the Star Wars movies "Hard to see the future is".... I've added some meta-commands to the name space that are certainly specific to LPub and the creation of building (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Kyle, This seems very pragmatic solution. I like it because there does not seem to be a "one size fits all" solution. Kevin (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I think that, with a little investigation, each command might be identified as 'general purpose' or 'application specific.' I think that haveing the app-specific ones prefixed with the appname (or even 'APP {appname}') isn't such a bad idea. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
I don't think of any new meta-commands as polution. Possibly over-population? I've got mixed feelings about the LTrax solution. It is very hard to know which meta-commands will be usable across many applications. Certainly the original LDraw (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) except that if you do that, it discourages cross-tool commands. If I'm writing FooCAD, and I want to implement one of the LTrax commands, should I make a new command '0 FooCad xxxx'? should I secretly support the '0 LTrax xxxx'? I'm not sure (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Good initiative! Please see (URL) don't know how official "0 Author:" is, but L3Lab uses it for the titlebar. /Lars (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) One thing that I think would help reduce namespace pollution is if everyone did what LTrax did... prefix the command with the app name for uniqueness. Not a perfect solution, of course. (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LTrax Commands (was: Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
I have some LTrax commands. (LTrax is an LDraw compatible "Track Designer") The LTrax are not 'official' LCad commands, but I wish to reserve the keyword. 0 LTrax Position <x y z> 0 LTrax Angle <v> [Degs*] 0 LTrax Object 9Volts\Straight.txt** 0 (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Hi All, As long as we're updating documentation, I'd like to create a list of the known meta-commands. The process for defining new meta-commands is completely unregulated, which is fine, but as a newcomer to LDRAW compatible CAD tools development, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Are Meta-commands case-sensitive?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I agree. (...) LPub and LSynth are case sensetive for all meta-command, including MPD's FILE and NOFILE meta-commands. Kevin Clague (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Your fresh eyes are very welcome. We had long discussions where sections of the spec were changed/moved/rewritten over and over, and I think there are some unnecessary repetions and redundacies, so a new full rewrite would be quite beneficial. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) Huh? Isn't NOCLIP/CLIP exactly for "un-commenting" a section (including subfile references) that hasn't been BFC checked? /Lars (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Are Meta-commands case-sensitive?
|
|
(...) L3P and L3Lab treat the FILE case-sensitive. (...) I think the "file type" meta-commands are the only ones that have been defined to NOT be case-sensitive. And yes, the "syntax" is a mess :-) (...) I agree. (...) L3P and L3Lab: MPD - (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Are Meta-commands case-sensitive?
|
|
I have a question about Meta-commands. Are meta-commands all supposed to be case-sensitive? As an example, is the 0 FILE MPD meta-command case-sensitive? I'm asking this because I have an MPD file that contains sub-files that themselves obviously (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) This is really no different from the fact that the incoming certify state has to also be on. So a subfile won't be BFC'd unless all its parents are certified and it is certified as well. Also, presumably if you refer to a subfile in a section (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) The spec should probably be updated to reflect this, I suppose. Please note that this comment and everything below is meant as constructive criticism. It's not meant as a complaint or a slight. I'd just like to see the spec improved. I'll even (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I'm currently doing this. Give me a couple of days. -Orion (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) What if file has NOCLIP, and subfile has CLIP (with or without accompanying NOCLIP)? Couldn't that become confusing? Should it automagically revert back to NOCLIP when the subfile is finished? ROSCO (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec? [DAT]
|
|
(...) Sorry this wasn't clear. It does mean 'current file and all subfiles'. More accurately, it means 'turn off clipping until/unless it gets turned back on in this file, overriding any possibility of clipping in a subfile, until the end of this (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Please go ahead and do it. Make it so. Steve (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Steve - Do you want to stick this on the site, or do you want me to? Either way is fine with me. -Tim (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
Thanks to everyone for the info. Now that I'm reading the spec, I have a question (and may have more later). In one part, it lists three conditions that must be met in order for BFC clipping to occur. The last condition is the following: 4 - No (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Yes, that's the latest document that can claim to be a spec. I checked the Parts Tracker FAQ, but it just pointed me to (URL) just has links, primarily to the document Lars found. If anyone wants to rewrite the proposal document to something (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) The wonderful Google came up with this link on a search for "BFC CERTIFY NOCERTIFY CLIP NOCLIP CW CCW INVERTNEXT" (URL) to me looks like the latest revision, but I guess Steve Bliss is the right person to ask. /Lars (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I agree. If someone provides me the spec, I'll add it to the site. -Tim (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
I'd like to (finally) add BFC support to LDView, so I performed a search here on lugnet.cad.dev to try and track down the BFC spec. Unfortunately, all the links I found were no longer valid. (Seeing as how the articles were 2 to 3 years old, that's (...) (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] Working on Update 2003-01
|
|
Chris, Do you have any news about the update? Jaco "Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:HB4AJJ.AMC@lugnet.com... (...) time, (...) posting. (...) for (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Measurements and Authoring
|
|
"Orion Pobursky" <bilthefish@IHATESPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:HB9Itr.4zw@lugnet.com... (...) eyeball (...) Well, I've just started authoring parts, but I am rather fond of my calipers, especially for inside measurements. My set happens to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Measurements and Authoring
|
|
(...) If the region of the part interfaces with an existing part then I base it upon that. Although, feel free to challenge existing parts if they are incorrect. Otherwise I do use a micrometer or steel rule (Imperial dimensions - using 1/64 = (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Part Measurements and Authoring
|
|
A question for all part authors How do you figure out the measurements for your parts? I'm not talking about the obvious measurements such as stud width but the more intricate details on some of the more complex parts. Do you use a micrometer, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldglite, crosshair in LEdit emu mode?
|
|
(...) Ah, I searched for "crosshair" in the documentation, but didn't check what the axis was. It looks like it displays the rotation centre at all time? That's useful. As you say, it works in a different way than the LEdit crosshair, but it's still (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldglite, crosshair in LEdit emu mode?
|
|
(...) It might already have what you want. Look for the Axis command on the Turn menu. The command is something like /ta to toggle it. It's not exactly the 2D crosshair from LEdit, but it could be useful. If not, let me know what would make it (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Ldglite, crosshair in LEdit emu mode?
|
|
I have used the LEdit emulation mode in Ldglite a lot recently, and I find it very useful. However, there is one graphical feature that I miss from the orginal LEdit, namely the crosshair. The crosshair is useful when rotating parts, to see where (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: My ideal Part-Authoring-Application (PAA)
|
|
(...) That's why I use LDAO. ctl-x, ctl-y, ctl-z for rotating in the Editor. Steve (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] Working on Update 2003-01
|
|
(...) Progress yesterday was close to zero due to unavailability of ldraw.org for much of the day. Maybe today... Chris (22 years ago, 2-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Download parts automatically with your preferred modeller?
|
|
(...) The easiest way would be a list of updates for example a simple text file containing the package names and date of release. This way an application can check when it last downloaded an update and incrementally load newer updates or even (...) (22 years ago, 1-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Download parts automatically with your preferred modeller?
|
|
(...) I don't like making "standards" that only work for products from one company. But nothing prevents somebody from implementing a protocol as a DLL for Windows - or as an Open Source library that anybody can use. But first we should agree on a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | [Parts Tracker] Working on Update 2003-01
|
|
I'm going to be working on LDraw Update 2003-01 this weekend. During this time, the Parts Tracker may be shutdown for file submissions and review posting. Thank you for your patience. Chris (22 years ago, 1-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Proposal: New Part *NAMING* System.
|
|
Once the numbering system is in place, we then can deal with the next sticky issue: part names. Since everyone will want their names to be the final name chosen, I would like to sidestep that issue - there should not be a final name chosen. But (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.db.inv, lugnet.db.brictionary)
|
| |
| | Re: Download parts automatically with your preferred modeller?
|
|
(...) Someone recently suggested to me a parts updater DLL we could have for download at LDraw.org, to have one standard parts downloader for modeler programs, and so programmers don't have to re-invent the wheel. I know this would apply to Windows (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Download parts automatically with your preferred modeller?
|
|
(...) Basically yes. > how about all this (...) I think there still are some details about the license for the parts library which aren't finalised, but Steve knows more about that. (...) That depends on what you mean. The trick of doing it with a (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: My ideal Part-Authoring-Application (PAA)
|
|
(...) no, you don't. do you remember "the voice" and his song: "my way". you just have to find your way. every author has his own. he will tell you that the one which suites him best is the ideal one, but there is no master plan... what counts is (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: My ideal Part-Authoring-Application (PAA)
|
|
(...) I am very anxious(sp?) to see this (...) Have you considered SynEdit? You can find it here: (URL) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: My ideal Part-Authoring-Application (PAA)
|
|
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:13:43 GMT, "Willy Tschager" <willy.tschager@tin.it> wrote: I have the following approach I first modelize the part with a commercial 3D Cad tool : Solidworks, then I export the STL file and convert it to dat with STL2DAT. (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: My ideal Part-Authoring-Application (PAA)
|
|
"Carsten Schmitz" <casz@gmx.de> skrev i meddelandet news:HAxE5J.BAI@lugnet.com... (...) I think it's OK with closed source in a standardized plugin framework. Keeps all the add-ons in plugins instead of different 'forks' of the source. Also less (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
